It has never been about guns or saving lives; it has always been about control, and this is just another piece of our freedom they think they can take from us. They hate America the constitution and all America stands for. No one should have the right to be free and make there own decisions.

She should of started a lobby to improve mental health care instead.

Wish I could vote you out.Oh that's right I can. Bye

As long as media like pmsnbc, cnn, abc, nbc, pbs, etc keep bringing up the issue it will not disappear, this will be the fight of this century, it will take center stage over the healthcare/budget issue, what happens with this issue wiull shape how america and americans live for the rest of our and our childrens children lives....what we have to watchfor is the administration sneaking legislation in the backdoor, or attaching it to something else like healthcare etc.....

Do not under any circumstance abolish any of our constitutional rights. Instead, eliminate gun free zones (known as easy pickens to the psychotics among us), and institutionalize the mentally ill.

I also live in Upstate NY, and seeing all the events of gun violence, it is clear that guns belong in armories -- not unsecured in homes. You can have all the guns you want, just keep them at the range. Take them out only when you need them for hunting or for practice. Then return them to your local armory for safe keeping. Second hand gun violence is the new second hand smoking. People will no longer tolerate this. Restaurants and places of business are now smoke free. Communities need to be safe from guns in the home. The second amendment serves all the people, including those like me who want guns 'well regulated' like it says in the amendment. That does not mean millions of gun owners securing, or not securing, their guns any way they feel like it. Lets get a jobs bill going to help build the armories our communities need to be safe!

You would use your child like that? Sicko.

John...keeping guns in a centralized location is idiotic. What happens when you need them? How long would it take to get them out of an "armory". American citizens have the right to protect themselves and their property in their home. I can only assume by your comment that you are an armed robber. That is the only way that I can rationalize your comment.

News

Good point especially in regards to determining those who are going to be more likely to commit such crimes as Newtown. His mom was working toward getting him committed, but current law draws this out perhaps too long over emphacizing/protecting the mentally ill persons rights to due process.

Bagdadjoe...I think what he means is that his family has been trained to protect themselves and their home...including his children. It isn't unrealistic to think that if someone, or a group of people, tried to forcibly enter this mans home that the entire family would defend it. The last to die would be the child if the parents were to try and protect the children. It's rather "TVish" but plausible.

She needs to ask herself,

"Would more guns laws have prevented a criminal from breaking laws already in effect when he shot me?"

April 19,1775. An English attempt to confiscate guns from Americans triggered a successful revolution. Dear government, that's a hint. MY GUNS, MY RIGHTS, MY FREEDOM!

What is needed are realistic punisment for the criminals...no conciquences....no justice,,,,,take away all the guns and you have England where people die every day from guns wielded by criminals and where they are outlawed....a stupid solution offered by stupid people who think government and laws are the solution to everything.....soon the USA will be communist and then you will finally have nothing but the right to do what the government tells you!!

I'm sorry but I fail to see any mention of taking away gun ownership - the article states "Reduce gun violence and prevent mass shootings". Can we all agree that these are worthy goals? Can we all agree that promoting mental health services might be 'part' of the solution? Can we all work together for safer schools & communities- 'Neighborhood Watch' is a good crime deterrent-at work we had training on what to do if a shooter appears-education, training (yes gun safety training and self protection are extremely important) cooperation with law enforcement etc, etc.....please do not allow fear to overrule common sense solutions.

Hey moj, it is pretty widely accepted that the death penalty is not a deterrent for crime. Additionally, one only receives the death penalty AFTER committing the crime. We need laws that will prevent mass murders from occurring. America will not mourn the loss of the 2nd amendment.

Mental health...that is the rut of the problem. Blame the AR-15 all you want, but the real common denominator in those shootings is mental health. Since our elected government and the insurance companies that got them elected won't do what is necessary to deal with mental health issues, they plan to punish everyone. Let me know how that turns out.

It's called CRIMINAL VIOLENCE...... the method has NOTHING to do with the crime

The gun-ban isn't working in Chicago. What part of it isn't working don't people understand? Gun violence went UP not DOWN! It's so frustrating when people simply ignore facts! If you are not willing to change your opinion because of facts then you shouldn't be posting because you are not thinking. You are pushing an agenda. It's a bad agenda. Why does Senator Feinstein who wants a ban with confiscation carry a gun and have a concealed carry permit? If she says guns don't make you safer then why does she carry one?

Gabby....the guy that shot you and killed the other people will be found to be mentally ill and "sentenced" to a Psychiatric Facility...which is where he should have been before shooting you and the others.....That's the Crusade you should be spearheading. He'll stay there till some doctors claim they have cured him and he is no longer a danger....You should be fighting to prohibit that too, by making those doctors responsible for any crimes their discharged patients commit....Same thing goes for Parole Boards releasing violent convicts for behaving nicely in prison....

Don't forget, his mother knew Sheriff Dupnik, and they all knew this kid had a few screws loose but did nothing about it....I think they owe you an apology too....Did you get one from Dupnik yet ???

Ms. Giffords would be better served and serve better if she would address mental health issues, treatment, lack of treatment, drugs etc.

Ozmosis,

Certainly, you can have a one shot musket. Heck, we'll let you have 10 of them if you want.

I feel bad that she was shot by a mentally unstable idiot, BUT, her new "group" is just another waste of time. Why don't they go after the real problems?? OH, yeh, that's a little tougher than just screaming to ban guns. But they will collect money from other fools and most likely pay themselves a very nice salary while they "fight gun violence". LOL LOL LOL Stupid!!!

Respect the Person ignore they Propaganda! The last thing America needs in the Age of Corporate Take Over of Our Country is to be Disarmed or sinlenced by McDonald's Pop-Up Adds (like appears to now be haopening in the Vines!

We do not need more gun laws, what we need is better enforcement of the laws we already have. The person that shot Giffords had a history of mental illness and was not legally allowed to own a gun, yet he had one anyway. It know it sound trite but the old saying holds true - when you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. What we really need are more effective laws for dealing with the mentally ill. The current laws make it extremely difficult to have someone who is mentally ill committed. In order to have them involuntarily committed you must be able to prove that they are either a danger to themselves or to others. The problem is that proving this to the satisfaction of most judges is next to impossible unless the person has already hurt themselves or someone else. The emphasis on individual rights makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to force treatment on someone who does not want it, no matter how mentally ill they may be. Unfortunately, the courts usually refuse to take any action until it is already to late and people are seriously injured or dead. Then it becomes a criminal matter rather than a mental health issue. Currently, about the only way to force treatment on someone is to have them convicted of a crime and make the treatment part of their sentence/parole. The criminal courts are being used to address what should be a medical issue. I am a firm believer in individual rights, but when the individual needs to be medicated to prevent them from becoming a danger to the community, then the rights of the community to be safe need to take precedence. Far too often you see people who are mentally ill go through a repetitive cycle. They commit a crime, this results in a finding of not guilty by reason of mental illness. They are then hospitalized and placed on medication. Once they are stabilized on the medication they are then found fit to be released. Once released they stop taking their medication and the cycle starts over again. This continue until they either die/kill themselves or end up committing a crime so serious that they are kept locked up permanently. There needs to be a way to force these people to take their medication after they are released. Many states do have laws that allow for a patient to be "committed" but not hospitalized where they are legally required to take their medication as a condition of their freedom. Unfortunately, the civil rights groups fight these forced medication sentences and judges are very reluctant to impose them. Even when they are imposed, the monitoring and enforcement is marginal at best. In addition, not all states have laws allowing this type of sentence. Since most of the mass killings that have occurred have been carried out by people who are mentally ill, we need to get serious about finding a way to make sure these people get treatment and remain on that treatment. Otherwise, wee will continue to read about more tragedies like Newtown, Aurora, etc.

Protect our inalienable rights, to "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" by implementing sensible gun control. Thank you!

Guns threaten our lives, and by exension our liberty and happiness...

The e-Bullet. Or iBullet, if you will, will evolve and change things for the better. All 300million weapons will be incapable of firing them, and any weapon within range of a signal from a safe zone.

Or how about guns that can be disabled electronically. It's an old design, some simple revamps would enable a safer environment.

Guns are cool, lets all go buy some, or lets have our existing 300million retrofit with the modern tech, this permits the owners all rights afforded them under our current laws.

Out there in the middle of nowhere, you fire without concern. Near the courthouse downtown your gun hasn't a chance of firing a single bullet.

Updating the design, or mandating program participation may not stop every tragedy, may not get to every criminal, but eventually legal firearms would permeate accessible gun safes and these horrific crimes would subside.

I would rather read about how a guy tried to get near a school and fire off some shots, but it didn't work because we implemented changes that made it impossible for a modern firearm to discharge.

Good for Ms. Gifford, there needs to be a group to ally with the Brady organization to lobby Congress and counter the NRA gun lobby.

Folks, I'm a gun owner. I have owned lots of guns including an assault rifle and a semi-automatic shotgun, WHEN I WORKED IN LAW ENFORCEMENT. I no long work in law enforcement and I own one gun, a Glock Model 23. It's all I need to protect my family.

NOBODY, outside the military or law enforcement needs an assault rifle. NO ONE. They should be banned.

NOBODY, outside the military or law enforcement needs a magazine capacity greater than six rounds. If you can't get the job done in six rounds with a reload magazine and another six round available, then you don't need a gun, you need running shoes.

NOBODY, outside the military or law enforcement needs a fully automatic firearm. PERIOD.

NOBODY, needs more than FOUR guns and that includes Law Enforcement and the Military. Limit the number of guns a person can own to FOUR. I chose that number because some gun sports require FOUR weapons to participate. Otherwise, I would have said TWO.

I would ban all assault weapons, hi-cap mags and limit the number of firearms a person can own to four. I would have a two year moratorium under which you could turn in your assault weapons, hi-cap mags and excess firearms for a tax credit on your next tax return. After two years if you are caught with a banned weapon or weapons then you would face felony prosecution.

This would reduce the number of guns on the street and eventually curtail the availability of assault weapons to the criminal element and those with mental problems.

I would further require that EVERY GUN OWNER attend a training class and receive a certificate indicating they took and passed the class. It would deal with basic gun safety, care and cleaning, and marksmanship. No certificate (after two years) you better not get caught with a gun. If you want to BUY a gun, you have to present your certificate of training.

The ATF would keep a national registry of gun owners and would have to do background and ownership checks to ensure that criminals are not buying guns and that gun purchasers are not exceeding their limit of four firearms.

Gun sales between individuals would have to be reported to the ATF. If you are caught with a firearm that is not properly registered to you, you will be charged with a misdemeanor and the gun confiscated on the first offense. Repeat offenders will face felony charges.

So much for sensible gun laws and enforcement.

But we have to do more. We have to address the mental health issues and somehow ensure that people with severe mental problems are not given access to firearms. That is trickier and I have some suggestions but ultimately that will have to come from the mental health professionals and law enforcement.

This is a total package. You have to do EVERYTHING in this recommendation before it is effective. Doing only part of it will not have the desired effect. That's why the Brady ban failed, it was incomplete.

The most controversial part of the plan is the outright ban and confiscation of banned weapons and equipment. Gun owners will howl over that. But it's the only way to make the gun laws effective.

YOU CAN STILL OWN A GUN, in fact up to FOUR GUNS. But you have to meet certain requirements, and certain firearms will be restricted to law enforcement and the military. Period.

"This country is known for using its determination and ingenuity to solve problems, big and small. Wise policy has conquered disease, protected us from dangerous products and substances, and made transportation safer. But when it comes to protecting our communities from gun violence, we're not even trying -- and for the worst of reasons."

Its too bad she cant use her "cause" to fight for mental health issues!!

The week before the shooting in CT, they voted down a new law that would make it a mandatory 5 day stay in a mental health facility for Baker Act....but no, lets just keep the mentally ill on the streets!

MIke..........exactly right Sir.

Case in point is the insanity that is hitting California from the Mexican Cartels trying to invade so they can push their product. So they want to take guns away and what... let the Cartels take over? There is sensibility when it comes to those that own guns. They are stored away and locked up. For those that aren't and thus fall into the wrong hands, slap them around a bit. Yet when you add a person whose mind isn't functioning on all cylinders that will always create a problem. I said this before and I'll say it again, where is the TALK about the mentally unstable and making sure they get treatment when SIGNS begin to show!? And to the Pharmaceutical Companies, make prescriptions drugs that WON'T have the massive side effects!!

@notrocketscience,

The 2nd Amendment protects your rights of Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness. That is why our founders thought it was so important to have firearms ownership and possession gauaranteed to the citizens by the United States Constitution.

I'm glad Skip that your viewpoint is not upheld by our natural rights, the Constitution, and the Supreme Court. The primary reasons for the right to keep arms including and up to standard issue military firearms is self defense against criminals and the potential even if slight of a tyrannical government

US v Miller and District of Columbia v Heller- SCOTUS has established the limits to types of weapons

And most importantly to this debate- this conclusion from SCOTUS in DC v Heller

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

"The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government." -- The Supreme Court of the United States, in U.S. v. Cruikshank 1876

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"

Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms ... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible." -- Hubert H. Humphrey Liberal Democratic Senator, 22 October 1959

Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws."

-- Edward Abbey father of environmental movement in"Abbey's Road", 1979

plu·toc·ra·cy

/plo͞oˈtäkrəsē/
Noun

1. Government by the wealthy.
2. A country or society governed in this way.

We should not forget that the spark which ignited the American Revolution was caused by the British attempt to confiscate the firearms of the colonists. - Patrick Henry

My definition of a assault weapon is anything I have in my hands that I'm going to hit you with.That could be any thing from my fist to anything else I could use against you.The only safe thing to do is ban everything,forgot since I could use my hands and feet,they have to banned also.

OBAMA Loves ILLEGALS

This all happened in just the last four years to didn't it. Because 49 months ago there were almost no illegals to speak of in Chicago.

Your just another idiot that thinks the problems of today just started yesterday and it is ALL 100% Obamas fault....

Open your @!$%#ing eyes.

All violent and criminal gun users are or were law abiding citizens at one time. Most of the time it was the use of the gun that made them law unabiding citizens.

Really Dick-1200935? That is about the stupidest analysis I've ever read or seen. Anyone who decides to commit a crime has already crossed the line, a weapon is nothing more than a tool. Better keep your day job, psychoanalysis is not your calling.

Ask the Vietnamese how effective small arms are against bombers and tanks.

Let's not forget that Murders by firearms have been declining since the Ban was allowed to expire in 2004. Violent Crime rate is down nearly 20% in that same period.

Everyone likes to use Britton as an example, but there are some major differences.

1. Firearms ownership in Britton is not Gauaranteed by law.

2. Violent Crime rate in Britton per capita is higher than the US. It's described as the most violent country in the European Union.

3. Let's not forget that even with Ban on firearms in Britton, there is still gun crime committed by criminals there. There is a black market for them.

4. Britton is now trying to ban knives as it is the most used weapon in violent crimes and murders.

@News or Propaganda ..that is the best thing said in this thread...focus on mental health....

skip,

No way you were an LEO. Any LEO in USA knows fully automatic firearms are illegal to own in the US without a special federal license. A license that is VERY difficult to obtain.

And i love your arbitrary number of guns allowed. Four? I need four shotguns alone for the type of hunting and shooting i do. And that doesn't count rifles and pistols for other types of shooting and hunting.

Four? WTF?

Jon-998022

And i love your arbitrary number of guns allowed. Four? I need four shotguns alone for the type of hunting and shooting i do. And that doesn't count rifles and pistols for other types of shooting and hunting.

If you need all that fire power to kill an unarmed duck, maybe you should spend more money on shooting lessons and less on guns.

I believe in the 2nd amendment, I also believe that there should one be ONE way to get a gun, and that is a licensed gun store, NO LOOPHOLES, Gun show, NO PRIVATE SALES. Register ALL GUN OWNERS, and I mean ALL. Strength the power of the background check to include more things.

DO NOT TAKE AWAY THE SECOND AMENDMENT, We the People HAVE GIVEN ENOUGH OF OUR RIGHTS BACK IN THE NAME OF SECURITY... NDAA 2012 to be specific....

Sorry Skip you are wrong and more controls are the last thing we need, I can't believe more controls on the honest upstanding citizen will stop the crazies, where are these people coming from? what will happen is you will loose what little control you have, just like prohibition did to alcohol, you will expand the black market, you will make criminals out of people that otherwise would be no threat to anyone, you will divide the nation even more then it is now, you will bring civil unrest to every corner of the nation. America was founded on freedom not control, do something about crazy people and leave our rights and our constitution alone. America has mental problems not fire arm problems, the media is a good starting point they have lots of mental health issues. follow that up with all the people that think they know better then you what is good for you. and knock off the PC BS in peoples daily lives we don't need it. control control control then you wonder why people snap. the problem is over exposure to Liberals, they are driving everyone insane with their lack of reasoning, their finger pointing and their know it all attitude when they don't know squat. one thing history has taught us is any form of prohibition for any reason does not work it goes against human nature. but liberals will never understand or be able to reason that out, they cant see beyond their agenda, they do not posses the ability to reason things out because they live in a fantasy land.

It would be more productive if Giffords went after the "Mental Health Lobby", after all, these killers all have mental health problems.

That would be to hard to actually go after the people who are performing these situations, so they go after the tool being used. You realize the hammer is above the rifle in 2011 killings, but the carpenters lobby will fight real hard.

@dawg, actually the "founding fathers" didn't agree on the inclusion of the right to bear arms in the bill of rights. The disagreement centered on the need to delineate each individual right. I would think that in retrospect, and after reading all of the gun nut responses, the founding fathers would agree that every individual right needs to be detailed in the bill of rights... the right to breath unpolluted air, the right to drink unpollouted water, the right to eat the kind of food that you like(regardless of it's high caloric, high saturated fat content)... see how ridiculous it is. One right that should certainly be written, as amendment 2a, is the right to not be shot while you're at school or at the mall or at the movie theater or anywhere! The Bill of rights is antiquated and needs serious reworking.

I'm sorry you gun nuts are incapable of empathy. It shows the sane elements of society just why you are going to be so stunned when you lose your so-called rights.

I gave up my firearms when people started committing mass shootings. I don't want to be associated with anyone that uses a firearm to take lives.

I don't need a gun to prove my self. I can do just fine without one. I can do better without one.

If you're incapable of keeping an open mind about this issue you should have to be evaluated by a mental health provider. It's just not normal. Most every one of you pro-gun advocates say that it's "nuts" that commit these mass shootings and you are the ones displaying anti-social personalities.

You have prescribed your own solution so don't be surprised when part of the new reality is a mental health assessment for every gun owner. I would hope that gun owners would comply without threats.

Houston,

Oh man. Now you have me thinking. I think i'll learn to shoot better so i can pass shoot an unarmed duck flying at 40 miles an hour with a .22 and unarmed pheasant and unarmed quail and unarmed partridge and unarmed rabbit and unarmed woodcock and unarmed skeet and unarmed bear and unarmed deer and unarmed Elk and unarmed varmints and unarmed paper targets and unarmed bowling pins ............

So skip if they say you can NO longer have that assault weapon(glock) as it can shoot to fast. Semi-automatic. Then are you going to give it up? Or would you be like most of us on here and tell them to pound sand

Sorry Jon, you are wrong. I worked for the Oklahoma County Sheriff's Office more than a decade ago. And it IS legal to own a fully automatic weapon, just as you state, with a special permit which is very difficult to qualify for. I would make it IMPOSSIBLE to qualify for if you weren't in the military or in law enforcement.

Sorry Jon, you don't NEED four shotguns. You WANT four shotguns, and rifles and pistols and on and on and on because YOU are a gun nut by your own definition. No offense intended, but you are the VERY person my recommendation is designed to curtail. Two handguns, two long guns, that's plenty for anybody.

Have a nice day

Good for you Anon. If you were afraid you couldn't handle guns responsibly you did the right thing on getting rid of them. Last thing we need is more kooks out there running around with guns.

Anon so when someone wants to take your life and your kids life how will you protect your wife, kids and yourself without any weapons. I still onw my guns, always will have them. If you want them come get them, I will empty them for you.

Thank goodness new gun laws are coming.

The majority of Americans are with you, Gabby Gifford and Mark Kelly.

Godspeed!

Hey John RN (#1.20) They weren't very well trained cops to shoot 9 bystanders, they would have failed my course and most others doing that. Same basic rules, be sure of your target and what's beyond. Semper Fi.

THE ONLY WAY WE WILL BE SAFE IN THIS COUNTRY, IS TO OUT LAW LOBBING.

Chuck, lobbing what? Hand grenades? I think those are covered under the 2nd amendment. Hand grenades don't kill. PEOPLE with hand grenades kill.

You gave up your firearms in 1914?

@ john

myself i dont think its a good idea to have to keep your guns in an armory or at the range locked up. have you not heard about the thirteen year old boy killed in canada by the cougar? the father had guns, but according to Canadian law they where locked up at the range. the cougar attacked and killed his son in his front yard, with the guns locked up he had no way to save his child. i live in a rural area, do farming and ranching. i need my gun at home for the predators in the area. i have literally seen a coyote pull a calf out of a birthing cow, then kill the cow as well. i need my firearm to protect my property, my herd, and my children from predators.

@Skip Nicholson: Your ideas are quite short sighted. The assault weapons ban did absolutely nothing to curb violence. Even these days, hammers kill more people than ALL RIFLES. Maybe we should start cutting down the number of hammers people should own. 4 hammers is enough. Nobody needs more than 4 hammers. Ah crap, looks like I'm going to have to build a secret storage area for my hammers, so that BSC law enforcement types like you don't find them.

Good for you that you don't think anyone needs more than 4 guns. Good for you. The problem with that theory is, you are you, and nobody else. You don't live in Alaska where people hunt for food, and might have different gun inventory requirements. A gun for hunting elk, a gun for smaller game, a gun for protection, a gun for the bears, and the list goes on. Some people collect historical artifacts from over a century ago. My point being, just because you say so, doesn't mean that's what works for everyone. A .45 mag handgun isn't going to work for small game. A .30-06 isn't going to work for that either. A .22 rifle isn't going to take down a bear.

But hey, while we're at it, let's start limiting the number of internet connected devices a person needs in their home. Nobody needs more than 4 of those. A desktop, a laptop, a tablet, and a cell phone. NOBODY needs more internet devices than that. It's too bad internet connected devices aren't protected by the constitution. I'd be in some big trouble, because I have way more than 4 devices for myself.

Your idea is as stupid as the limit the FAA put on the number of lighters a person can carry in their carry on luggage. At one point, you could only have 2 lighters. One time on a trip out of the country, I had 4 in my bag, and during a hand search I was told I had to throw away 2 of them. I asked the TSA moron what I could do with 4, that I couldn't do with two. He responded, "Good point, I'm not really sure". That's because there is nothing. Even if you limited weapons to 4, hypothetically, I could strap all 4 of them to my belt, load them up with the maximum number of bullets based on your clip limit, and pull off a mass killing spree. I would also be sure to carry a couple of extra clips for each gun, so that when I run out, I just pop in a new clip. Easy easy easy. Your stupid ideas will not solve the mass shooting problem. Besides, I could just mimic Mr McVeigh and make a bomb big enough to conflict more casualties than any gun could ever be capable of. There is always a way around your asinine ideas.

And since you're dumb enough to ignore the details of the Giffords shooting, it was ONE 9mm handgun. ONE gun. Granted, he used a single extended 30 round clip, that could have been overcome by just loading up 2 standard 15 round clips in two guns, to equal 1 extended clip. They he could have fired them twice as fast. How do your stupid rules prevent this from happening? The fact is, they don't. They don't even alleviate 0.1% of the problem.

How many guns do I own? Zero. No guns. I've owned a couple in the past, but I have no need for one right now. But you are the exact type of person that makes me want to act like a crazy "Obama's gonna take away our guns" Republican, and go out and buy 20 of them for good measure.

I may be a left leaner, but this is one issue where I stand firmly with Conservatives.

Skip,

Sorry Jon, you don't NEED four shotguns. You WANT four shotguns, and rifles and pistols and on and on and on because YOU are a gun nut by your own definition. No offense intended, but you are the VERY person my recommendation is designed to curtail. Two handguns, two long guns, that's plenty for anybody

This is the beauty of the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution. It is up the to individual to decide how many firearms they own, or if they want to own one at all. That is a right protected by law. Cars kill over 32,000 people a year. Do you see anyone saying you should be limited on how many you own? Heart Diease kills 600,000 people a year in the US. Do you see Congress trying to restrict whay you eat and where you eat? There are roughly 1,000 murders a year by knives or other tools. Do you see any attention to those weapons? Those aren't protected under the Bill of Rights, so they should be easy targets.

No apologies necessary skipper but thanks.

How often are legally owned fully automatic weapons used in crimes in this country? I really have no problem with no civilian owning that type of weapon but your comment alludes to some big crime problem out there with the current system. I don't see it.

And your four gun rule is one of the most uniformed statements regarding gun ownership i have ever heard. I'm glad folks like you don't make the rules. Lord know what other bat$hit crazy things you would come up with.

@ skip

i guess you don't hunt skip, myself i own three shot guns, 5 rifles and one muzzleloader. they are all different calibres designed for hunting different species. many hunters own multiple guns because of state laws that limit the type of calibres for the hunting of different species. now if you want to limit the amount of guns, go talk to fish and game and have them change the laws so you can use what ever calibre for all game species. i don't see fish and game making any changes though. the calibre rules are set so game animals are killed as humanly as possible without the loss of meat.

Gabby Giffords, an angel of light, to take on the NRA terrorist Wayne LaPierre, the anti-Christ himself.

silverton-2953905

Thank goodness new gun laws are coming.

The majority of Americans are with you, Gabby Gifford and Mark Kelly!

Yes! Thank Goodness! The next time a psycho with a gun, who doesn't give a @!$%# about gun laws, comes to the mall food court, intent on killing people, there won't be anyone to stop him. Good plan!

Jon,

The last time an Automatic Weapon was used in a Crime were the Illegally modified AKM's and AR-15 used in the North Hollywood Bank Robbery. THAT WAS DURING THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN JUST TO REMIND YOU GUN CONTROL FOLKS.

I think many of you would find the following article quite interesting.

http://www.alt-market.com/articles/1243-feinsteins-gun-control-bill-will-trigger-the-next-american-revolution

Most liberals probably won't understand.

The next time a psycho with a gun, who doesn't give a @!$%# about gun laws, comes to the mall food court, intent on killing people, there won't be anyone to stop him. Good plan!

Most malls would throw you out if you set foot on their property carrying a weapon. Being a responsible gun owner means playing by the rules, silly as they may be, does it not?

If we want to really stop or lower the outbreaks of these types of shootings we should address mental health.

A politician or an important person gets shot and they immediately jump to a gun control measure like the Brady Campaign. The common theme to all of these recent shootings, including Mrs. Gifford's, and Brady was that all the shooters were absolutely suffering from serious mental health issues which were prone to violence. They were also known to be suffering from those issues way before they ever got access to or a handle on any type of fire arm. I'd rather address the problem, Mental Health. Rather then punish everyone in a vain attempt to 'protect' us all from the few, with the true reason being limitation of individual liberty and weakening the population to opress it more fully to the rule of central government.

@Pragmatic,

Not all malls in the Nation say you can't have a firearm. I carry mine to my local mall all the time. That mall also has sporting goods store that sells firearms. So you really can't say no guns on premises, as that would be contradictory. I'm a responsible gun owner that reviews the laws in my state and the states that I travel to respect the places where I am legally allowed to carry.

Pragmatic-3918582

Most malls would throw you out if you set foot on their property carrying a weapon. Being a responsible gun owner means playing by the rules, silly as they may be, does it not?

I don't know about most malls. Every mall I go to in NY (State not City), has the usual list of rules. Almost always there is one that says basically, Weapons are not permitted unless authorized by state or local law. In NY state, a concealed carry permit is authorization. I carry at the mall.

Next time you go to your local mall, take a look and see what the rules say.

hardtostarboard

All violent and criminal gun users are or were law abiding citizens at one time. Most of the time it was the use of the gun that made them law unabiding citizens.

Really Dick-1200935? That is about the stupidest analysis I've ever read or seen. Anyone who decides to commit a crime has already crossed the line, a weapon is nothing more than a tool. Better keep your day job, psychoanalysis is not your calling.

I agree, we had better not let anyone have anything dangerous because tomorrow they might become a criminal. That logic is senseless. That means no-one can drive a car, because tomorrow they might get in a wreck and kill someone!

The fact that criminals were innocent at one point is a given, but they chose to start being so of their own volition. Trying to limit everyone because a few will chose to become criminals is ludicrous.

It will be great when Ms. Gifford and the rest of those who cannot see the real problem wake up and tackle the real issues......Mental Health, and those who have give the mentally ill "rights" that put the general public, and themselves at risk. That is the real problem, not the gun lobby. 99% of those in the United States that own guns are not the problem, yet we are having our rights tread upon by those who would rather blame a "thing" rather than the person.

Had the plentiful warning signs from the young man that shot Gifford been acted upon, instead of ignored, the shooting would not have happened. That is where the real guilt lies, with those who knew something was wrong with this man, yet they did nothing.

Thanks Dawg, thats what i suspected. The North Hollywood Bank Robbery was 15 years ago and the weapons were ILLEGALLY obtained/modified to fully auto. They were not legal

Skips idea has little merit in that regard.

@Cniht,

The ACLU would be all over any attempt to restrict or target those with Mental Illnesses. I agree that Mental issues are the cause of nearly all the mass shootings, but the majority of gun related crimes and deaths are from people who commit crime on a daily basis, and gang bangers. If someone wants to pass new gun laws then it needs to be aimed at the criminals not the law abiding gun owners.

From the New York Post:

A Staten Island education committee voted last night to demand that the city’s schools be guarded by gun-toting lawmen, in a desperate bid to beef up security in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., massacre.

The Communication Education Council for District 31 last night approved the high-caliber proposal with a vote of 9-1.

The council called for the Department of Education to hire 300 to 500 retired NYPD cops to rove 1,750 city schools in all boroughs and install buzzer-entry systems with video and “panic buttons” at main entrances.

The vote doesn’t have any binding effect on the DOE — which has made it clear that it does not want armed guards in schools. But the vote showed the amount of support the idea of armed guards — put forth last month by NRA boss Wayne LaPierre — has in some parts of the Big Apple.

“I just want my daughters to be safe in school,” said Aaron Bogad, 44, whose three daughters attend PS 5. “If the kids will be safer, retired officers with guns might be the answer. Would I be 100 percent against it? If it kept my kids safe . . . no.”

Sal Farino, 47, believes guns should be in the classroom — and not just in the hands of cops, but of teachers.

“I think all the teachers should have guns,” he sad. “If crazy people knew teachers had guns, they would think twice about their actions.

-trigger-the-next-american-revolution

So your idea is to kill everyone that doesn't believe you have a right to own a gun? Not much of a gun battle since the non gunners won't have any guns.

Always remember the second amendment doesn't give you a right to bear arms, it is the interpretation that gives you the right. Many parts of the Constitution read the same but is interpreted differently now than a 100 years ago and therefore has a different meaning.

John-1639742 Comment collapsed by the community

I also live in Upstate NY, and seeing all the events of gun violence, it is clear that guns belong in armories -- not unsecured in homes. You can have all the guns you want, just keep them at the range. Take them out only when you need them for hunting or for practice. Then return them to your local armory for safe keeping. Second hand gun violence is the new second hand smoking. People will no longer tolerate this. Restaurants and places of business are now smoke free. Communities need to be safe from guns in the home. The second amendment serves all the people, including those like me who want guns 'well regulated' like it says in the amendment. That does not mean millions of gun owners securing, or not securing, their guns any way they feel like it. Lets get a jobs bill going to help build the armories our communities need to be safe!

You sound like a British person that is becoming more and more hated EVERY time he opens his mouth. Don't you realize that if you place a map of crime, not just crimes that involve guns, over a map that shows where guns are prevalent that the crime rate in the low gun areas is WAY higher than the gun areas? There are a DOZEN other ways people are killed that have higher rates of death, including death by hands and feet or how about drinking and driving. Oh, but that would take away YOUR favorite activity, wouldn't it. Wish I could post the image that shows the FBI's tally of all of this.

CRIMINALS fear guns. POLITICIANS fear guns. FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS fear our guns. Get your head out of your arses and realize that it is CONTROL that is the game that is being played here.

But you don't want to see it, do you? If our right to protect ourselves is taken away then ALL of your other favorite rights will be taken away as well. It is OUR right to protect ourselves that is holding up the rest of the world right now. If that falls, then the rest of the world will fall as well.

LeftLeaningLisa- Marry me!!

It's tyrants that want to take away our right to bare arms,little steps at a time,and ironically that's exactly why our Founding Fathers put the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution in the first place,It's comments like Skip's and other Ant-gunners that Show how they want to pick and choose what kind,how many,where they can be purchased,and a list of who has what and where they have them,is very dangerous,It is none of the Goverments or anyones business what and how many guns anyone has,Period.If A "list" of owners and their guns falls into the wrong hands,like it did recently with the media publishing fiasco,to "OUT" them and demonized lawful owners and put them out there so Anti-gun people can harass them,Is exactly why Pro 2nd Amendment gun owners are so untrusting of the motives and Agenda behind the Anti-gun 2nd Amendment people,Some say dont worry its just this or that we want,its no big deal,we have everyones best intrests at heart,Thats how it starts.And therefore we should not allow any further changes to our laws,enforce the pitiful gun laws in place,(they don't work BTW).

Instead work on the mental health and change those laws,And Harshly Punish those that commit crimes and kill People no matter what weapon of their choosing they carry out their crimes with.

skip Nicholson, Oklahoma City

Good for Ms. Gifford, there needs to be a group to ally with the Brady organization to lobby Congress and counter the NRA gun lobby.

Folks, I'm a gun owner. I have owned lots of guns including an assault rifle and a semi-automatic shotgun, WHEN I WORKED IN LAW ENFORCEMENT. I no long work in law enforcement and I own one gun, a Glock Model 23. It's all I need to protect my family.

NOBODY, outside the military or law enforcement needs an assault rifle. NO ONE. They should be banned.

Sorry Skip, this IS hilarious. You are calling it an assault weapon just like the politicians and the media incorrectly does. Its nothing of the sort and massively erodes your credibility here pal. They are single shot rifles that are less effective than a 40 caliber pistol or a 308 hunting rifle. Plus hardly any crimes have been committed by them annually. I dont believe you own a gun if you didnt know this.

NOBODY, outside the military or law enforcement needs a magazine capacity greater than six rounds. If you can't get the job done in six rounds with a reload magazine and another six round available, then you don't need a gun, you need running shoes.

Magazine capacity is irrelevant. My wife, who is new to guns, can reload any magazine in less than 3 seconds if it isnt a tactical reload. What this means is that if she carried 30 6 round magazines in a dump pouch, she couldve done the same damage as someone with 3 30 round magazines. This point of yours is irrelevant and quite foolish.

NOBODY, outside the military or law enforcement needs a fully automatic firearm. PERIOD.

People that do now are heavily (and I mean heavily) tracked and regulated. But you have made a good point - WHY would anyone want to be restricted weapons the government uses, often on its own population? WHY does the President, Senators and Congressmen get people protecting them with these weapons when I can use one to protect my family from the criminals that also have them?

NOBODY, needs more than FOUR guns and that includes Law Enforcement and the Military. Limit the number of guns a person can own to FOUR. I chose that number because some gun sports require FOUR weapons to participate. Otherwise, I would have said TWO.

Well put. But are you so naive to think that criminals and other militaries dont have access to more than four? Why would we want to be so limited?

I would ban all assault weapons, hi-cap mags and limit the number of firearms a person can own to four. I would have a two year moratorium under which you could turn in your assault weapons, hi-cap mags and excess firearms for a tax credit on your next tax return. After two years if you are caught with a banned weapon or weapons then you would face felony prosecution.

So you actually advocate the government searching homes for banned weapons? Did you also advocate suspending the 4th Amendment here as well? You support illegal search and seizures by the government that is supposed to be protecting our rights? You have gone off the deep end Skip...were you a Nazi sympathizer in the 40s? They enacted similar legislation.

This would reduce the number of guns on the street and eventually curtail the availability of assault weapons to the criminal element and those with mental problems.

Negative pal!!!!! Criminal elements have access to hundreds of thousands of guns, most of which are automatic and possess NO serial numbers nationwide. Cartels funnel illegal weapons to MS13 who distributes them on city streets to their members and for general sale for the right price. This fact is complete lunacy. Criminals will ALWAYS have access to illegal weapons and I cant wait to see you trying to shoot your 22 6 round rifle at the gangbanger with an Uzi who kicks in your door.

I would further require that EVERY GUN OWNER attend a training class and receive a certificate indicating they took and passed the class. It would deal with basic gun safety, care and cleaning, and marksmanship. No certificate (after two years) you better not get caught with a gun. If you want to BUY a gun, you have to present your certificate of training.

This is the smartest thing you have said so far.

The ATF would keep a national registry of gun owners and would have to do background and ownership checks to ensure that criminals are not buying guns and that gun purchasers are not exceeding their limit of four firearms.

Great more government oversight by a more inept and redundant agency. Thats all we need is MORE government like we dont have enough already.

Gun sales between individuals would have to be reported to the ATF. If you are caught with a firearm that is not properly registered to you, you will be charged with a misdemeanor and the gun confiscated on the first offense. Repeat offenders will face felony charges.

If you can get this done on a state level I would be okay with this. The ATF has NO place in states rights.

So much for sensible gun laws and enforcement.

But we have to do more. We have to address the mental health issues and somehow ensure that people with severe mental problems are not given access to firearms. That is trickier and I have some suggestions but ultimately that will have to come from the mental health professionals and law enforcement.

This is a total package. You have to do EVERYTHING in this recommendation before it is effective. Doing only part of it will not have the desired effect. That's why the Brady ban failed, it was incomplete.

Your recommendation makes less sense than the Brady Bill because you actually believe that criminals get their guns from John Smith who just bought a brand new AR15 at Walmart. Its the general public believing crap like this that has made the 2nd Amendment rights up for grabs. This DOESNT happen, period.

The most controversial part of the plan is the outright ban and confiscation of banned weapons and equipment. Gun owners will howl over that. But it's the only way to make the gun laws effective.

You seriously would have loved working for Hitler and the Third Reich. Study this because they disarmed the public through legislation very similar to what you are proposing. Once rights are stripped, they are GONE never to return. All a politician has to do is keep chipping away at this to take more and more rights. Eventually Hitler preyed on a completely disarmed population when their original constitution was very similar to ours since it was drafted by us after the first World War. This is how is starts and fruitcakes like you riding this legislation all the way to a police state.

YOU CAN STILL OWN A GUN, in fact up to FOUR GUNS. But you have to meet certain requirements, and certain firearms will be restricted to law enforcement and the military. Period.

Be Accountable-1433376...

YOU ARE A LIAR !

In 1997 when I moved to Aurora, almost EVERY commercial sign was in SPANISH, the town was more than half FULL of ILLEGAL MEXICANS !

And when Arizona instituted SB-1070, the population of aurora increased immediately !

You ought to leave your Northside WHITE haven & get off your block once a decade...

unless you are happy portraying yourself as an IDIOT or LIAR in public .

Dick2100935,

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

You say the Second Amendment doesn't give us the right to bear arms, only the "interpretation" of it does? You need to learn to read.

Once again a "Corporate" non profit becomes "Political".....A Church may not keep it's non profit status if it's Pasteur makes "Political" remarks and yet once again a "Non Profit" Corporation Sponsored Organization to Disarm America is?

I had a lot of sympathy for Ms Gifford before but now of that justifies her attempts to disarm America now!

With these new Corporate Sponsored Laws like Indefinite Detention for Americans without Trial. allowing Killer Drones in America, and Obama's Presidential "Termination" Lists including Americans we are closer to Plutocratic Tyranny today than EVER before!

Ignore those like "Gabby Gifford" who would use Atrocities to Disarm America for their Wall Street Masters no matter how "Well Meaning" they sound!

Remember who and what she was BEFORE she was shot......A Corporate Corrupted Politician!

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."~George Mason

This is going to end up just like the Brady's fiasco. If this woman thinks she's going to be the next anti gun queen she better think twice. We the people are tired of these self serving idiots trying to change our culture just because the government, insurance companies and the AMA has turned their back on the mental health issues in this country. Ask any family of a mentally ill person and they will tell you about the runaround they get from those three entities. Starting in the 80s the government decided to get out of the mental care industry sending 100s of thousands of mentally ill people into the streets. Now families like the Lanza's are faced with an enormous tragedies. Ask yourself what is the common denominator in these shootings? Nearly all of them had been treated with mood altering drugs. READ THE LABELS!!!!!! It says right on them that "this drug can induce suicidal thoughts." PERIOD.

Dont fall for this crap. If the government really wanted to keep this from happening they would invest in MENTAL HEALTH!!!!!!

Notice yet again the liberal strategy of not addressing the root cause in the latest tragedies - lack of decent mental health care and laws in the US. Notice it was their agenda that eliminated the care options in the past, stating these folks should be mainstreamed... How's their agenda working for us lately?

In a related story, fat people have started a new site against forks, car accident victims have started a new site against cars, and fall victims have started a new site against gravity...

"Hello, my name is Gabby. This is my husband, Kelly. We both carry guns, but we are here to tell you that you don't need to, and we are asking you to join us in demanding that the government disarm the rest of Americans who follow laws that are passed. We will worry about the criminals who ignore the laws later."

Yeah, sure. I'll give up my gun if you'll loan me yours until you take care of the criminals.

I went to the gun show last weekend with a couple friends. One bought a rifle, he had to go through the same paperwork, background check, and 10 day waiting period.

The government needs to force doctors to report when a person is on certain psych drugs or mentally in stable. The address for that person needs to be linked to the background process. Every year a person that wants to purchase ammunition would have to go to a gun shop and fill out a back ground check and get a card to purchase ammunition. If they are reported by a doctor or their address is they can not obtain a permit. If a doctor fails to report someone he loses his medical license and gets prosecuted for what that person did. If you buy the ammo and give it to someone with out a valid permit you lose the ability to get a card again and if it is used in a crime can be prosecuted for the crime as well.

We seem to forget the 1st and 2nd amendment were written to protect us from a tyrannical government. The first amendment gives you the right to speak out against your government. The 2nd gives you the right to arm yourself equally against it. Our founding fathers lived it, they fought to get away from it. They wrote the constitution to give Americans the ability to keep our freedom, not just from Britain but from our own government. "America will never be destroyed from outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." (Abraham Lincoln)

Look at some gun control history.

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated...

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

How many of you have actually read the Declaration of Independence? We as a society have drifted so far from what it means to be an American. Our government is letting us down. These mass shooting are tragedies. Why does the press and our government try to make the shooter out as a normal law abiding citizen that went on a shooting spree because he had a gun? What if Lanza sat outside of the school in a pickup truck with a full tank of gas and waited for the kids to be at recess, then drove through the playground? These are not just mass shootings, they are mass killings. Banning one tool just makes them choose another. We have real issues a lot bigger then gun control. Why do our prisoners live better then our poor? Why do unwilling to work keep getting more and more handed to them? Why do the mentally ill get perscribed mind altering drugs and released with out supervision? I could go on for pages. Every gunman has had some type of mental defect.

Why should I be allowed to own 30 round magazines? Why should someone be allowed to own a sports car that can go 150 miles per hour?

The bottom line is bad people do bad things, guns are not the problem!

texasbob

It has never been about guns or saving lives; it has always been about control, and this is just another piece of our freedom they think they can take from us. They hate America the constitution and all America stands for. No one should have the right to be free and make there own decisions

BRAVO BOB!!!!!!!!!

You are absolutely correct!

For decades they have created more rules, laws and regulations yet we have more and more anger, hate, rage and violence in our great Republic. We have waged “social wars” on drugs, crime, poverty and illiteracy and they have all been abject failures. Of course in the Liberal/Progressive mind everything can just be fixed with more government creating more laws. If that doesn’t work, just spend more money on it until it does.

They ignore the main function of government, to protect our borders. Subsequently 15 million criminals have been allowed to invade our sovereign nation. Any attempts by the States to control and protect themselves is attacked as profiling, hate crimes, racism or some other nonsensical politically correct driven stupidity.

Once the borders were allowed to be so porous, cities needed to be established to shelter the onslaught of crime drugs and violence. Sanctuary cities were allowed by the Liberals/Progressives to protect the very criminal element that allows our nation to be enveloped in violence, drugs, gangs, homicides and poverty. Of course, the Liberal cabal embraces the "sanctuary" in the name of, "It feels good".

When law enforcement tries to enforce the law against criminals, they are insulted as insensitive and use extreme force. They are ridiculed and demonized for trying to deal with the crime that Liberals/Progressives condone. The irrational solution to some of this by Liberals is to legalize or decriminalize drugs and create stricter gun laws. Of course when the argument is to cut spending the police are always the first to be propped up by Liberals as being victimized.

In 2009 a total of 39,147 persons died of "drug-induced" causes in the United States compared to 31,347 persons killed from firearm injuries. Only in the convoluted delusional mind of Liberals can this make any sense. The rationale is to legalize something that causes more death while criminalizing something that causes less death.

Liberals/Progressives hate America, the Constitution and the exceptionalism that identifies us as special. They always promote their little Scandinavian nations as showcases for their social democracy nonsense and their social and economic justice idiocy. It doesn’t matter that none of those Shangri-La’s are the size of Michigan. Liberals/Progressives have been so indoctrinated by the Ivy League faculty-lounge elitists they can’t think for themselves any longer. The “Life of Julia” is their motivation rather than individual achievement.

Our Imposter–in-Chief proudly admits he doesn’t believe in our Constitution. The Liberals/Progressives in the Senate have caused us to already get a credit downgrade. They have not created a budget for 1,350 days. This is because the Left doesn’t want you to know where they are spending all our tax dollars, most of which is going to their cronies for past and future election bribes. Our National Debt is on course to exceed $22 trillion by 2016 under Barrack Husseins incompetence. Social Security and Medicare will be insolvent in 23 and 9 years respectively. Social Security is already running in the red for 2 years.

Recently the Liberals refused any significant spending restraints during the “fiscal cliff”. Instead they demanded to just punish the productive and successful, the rich. To avoid the cliff, and adding $2,000 a year to middle class families, they agreed to the current situation. The middle class saw a 2% increase in their payroll tax adding $1,000 a year to their cost. Gas is still about $1.50 higher than it was before the payroll tax holiday, this adds another $1,000 to $1,500 a year to middle class budgets.

In the meantime the rich have just shuffled their wealth around and laugh at the class-warfare meme Barrack Hussein has promoted. All they had to do most of the time is to sharpen their skills regarding deferred compensation policies. So, the middle class pays over $2,000 more every year and the rich laugh at us.

I guess we showed those mean, nasty, rich, fat-cats, didn’t we?

Now poor Gabby Giffords is being manipulated into being the talking-head for the Lefts desperate attempt to make us feel they are doing something. The same nonsense that was enacted in 1994 will be promoted, which did nothing to appreciably decrease gun violence. The usual bogeymen that Liberals/Progressives love to chase around will be placed front and center. More government intrusion into our 2^nd Amendment Rights will be attempted. Nothing will be done about the deinstitutionalization of mental illnesses, a better education system so more unstable Liberals can be identified before they go off on another murderous rampage.

It’s shameful that the Left will exploit Gabby Giffords for their dysfunctional Progressive ideologies.

But then again, Liberals have no shame just fairy-tale ideologies.

To hear Adam Lanza's Doctor explain what happened you need to watch this video.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=aaplw&p=Adam+Lanza's+Doctor

No kids, I don't hunt bambi. I hunt humans. I'm an investigator and hunting humans is FAR more dangerous because I don't carry a gun to do it and sometimes THEY DO.

No, I don't believe that a gun that would kill a bear wouldn't kill an elk and subsistance hunters do not own multiple firearms as you suggest. If they could afford that many guns, they wouldn't need to subsistance hunt would they?

The Brady act was not effective BECAUSE the government didn't require the surrender of the banned weapons and equipment. You can't say, "You can't buy anymore but you can keep what you already have." That's nuts.

Folks, you're arguments don't stand up. Owning a gun is a a responsibility too many people take lightly. We've got a GUN CULTURE in this country based on myths and advertising slogans that we've got to admit and to change. NOW!

What was the reason for the shooting of Gabby and the others? was it a mad man or an angry man?

What did she say or do that caused it? What is the reason? They are always attacking the rights of the Honest law abiding American citizens and the low information voters are falling for it every time. The border is wide open and that is enough of a reason to fight the government who has failed or refused to protect the USA from the continuing invasion of Insurgent Career Criminal Foreign Drug Cartels. They are shooting each other in the streets of america and it is being used to attack American's Rights.

Obama* and Holder are still going to be held to account for their actions in the Fast and Furious conspiracy to supply assault weapons to insurgents, and the death of the border Patrol Agent. The Obama* Benghazi massacre is a good enough reason to impeach Obama*. He is the man who is responsible for the actions or inactions of his administration.

The "Biden / Feinstein Columbine Massacre" was done at the time when the Biden / Feinstein gun ban was in force. Many of the gun bans have been ruled as being Unconstitutional by The Supreme Court of The United States of America and one Racist justice will not change that truth.

If you want to place an excessive tax on amunition, I will just deduct the expense from my taxes.

Obama* wants to Repeal the Presidential term limit and that could be very dangerous for all of us, even his favord 800,000 children of Illegals, who he gave a free pass to your tax dollars for college and housing and food stamps. Since that is temporary, they can go to the back of the line and start over.They were brought here against their will and their parents are to blame, not americans.

If this results in a civil war, the Millitary and Police and National Guard do support The Constitution of The United States of America, they have a duty to protect the people even from a tyranical executive branch and judicial branch of the government.

To order the armed forces to do anything contrary to the constitution, is exersizing a discretionary power in a manner inconsistant with the duties of the offices of the President or Congress or Senate.

#1.85 eric - myself i own three shot guns, 5 rifles and one muzzleloader. they are all different calibres designed for hunting different species. many hunters own multiple guns because of state laws that limit the type of calibres for the hunting of different species. now if you want to limit the amount of guns, go talk to fish and game and have them change the laws so you can use what ever calibre for all game species. i don't see fish and game making any changes though. the calibre rules are set so game animals are killed as humanly as possible without the loss of meat.

I just have to say this. Reading your comments, I am sickened. What shallow, selfish, unethical people hunters are. Because they have very powerful weapons, they feel they are entitled to shoot and kill, for their entertainment, taking the life away from an innocent animal, because they're "men" and they have the advantage. Just because hunting is legal doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

This isn't the Wild West anymore. Anything you need to survive can be purchased at the grocery store. Other beings have the right to live out their natural lives. We have to get past this anthropocentric mindset.

@Dawgfan, Roxlie

Not all malls in the Nation say you can't have a firearm. I carry mine to my local mall all the time. That mall also has sporting goods store that sells firearms. So you really can't say no guns on premises, as that would be contradictory. I'm a responsible gun owner that reviews the laws in my state and the states that I travel to respect the places where I am legally allowed to carry.

In addressing the comment the poster made, I was referencing the ability of a gun owner to "save the day" as it were. And I was pointing out that there are malls that do not permit this. I have never been in a mall that permits it, but my experience is limited to what is local.

The biggest "truth" about gun-control is the fact that it WILL NOT WORK.... never has, never will....

What will happen is this..... first the "evil guns" will be outlawed, then the ones that shoot big bullets, then handguns and finally shotguns....... gun control will grow & grow until there are no more guns in law-abiding hands.... that will leave only the criminals & the government with weapons.... NEITHER of which can be trusted..........

Laws made to RESTRICT access to firearms have worked "so well" across the world, what makes any of these politicians think it would be any different here in the US?

I may be a left leaner, but this is one issue where I stand firmly with Conservatives.

I applaud you. Finally somebody that does not follow the company talking points and has their own opinion outside of the party lines. Again, I applaud you.

The limitation of the debate is all the rock trowing. If one classifies "everyone" on the other as either Gun Nuts or Left-Wing Nut-Jobs, then its going to be hard to find common ground - which is surprisingly vast in this case among the general public - but we have let the wing-nuts control the debate.

On the left, there are some participants who want a total gun ban. They know they don't have the numbers, to they couch it in "control" language and don't come out and say it.

On the right, there are some who think arming everyone is a great idea. And profess to believe that even the most reasonable controls will bring forth the downfall of civilisation.

The problem is - these are the folks debating the laws. They say they are resonable - they are not. Since they are disingenuous, then they will right bad law. And bad law always bites one in the end.

Follow the fight over the Chicago gun ban. Mayor at the time Daley saw the supreme court's ruling in DC. Publicly they said they would not/could not have a ban. Privately (got to love open meeting) Daley openly conspired to enact a new de-facto ban by making applications so onerous no one could pass, even though the Supreme Court had already said that any de-facto ban is also unconstitutional. So Mayor Daley and team openly sought to circumvent/defy the Constitution and the Supreme Court. It didn't work.

And these disengenuous types are your negotiating partners? Don't hope for much.

On the opposite side are people arguing against common sense background check, proficiency testing standards, or the limit on military hardware. "I'm not a criminal so why can't I have a rocket launcher". Simple - because your rights don't trump mine.

They perhaps counter saying they can't yield an inch because they are beset by "ban-ers" in sheep's clothing. Some truth there maybe....

They perhaps should work on being more reasonable, while exposing the disingeniousness of the ban-ers.

The ban-ers on the other hand, should fess up - and say it proudly. They want to ban private ownership of guns, and sieze then all from the public. It's not an ignoble goal. Its just an impractical one. And not because it will cause revolution. It likely wouldnt. Its because millions willl just keep their guns and wait for the Supremen Court Challange

But so long as both sides negotiate in bad faith, no progress is made, and our schools remain vulnerable

How is the war on drugs going? How did making them illegal prevent them from being on every street corner in America? Why can I get them on any street corner if they are already "illegal" and carry some of the stiffest penalties? Some of the penalties are worse or longer versus violent crimes. Granted many gun crimes are do to drugs, them being illegal, and the huge profit margins they have on them. Legalize drugs and large corporations will get involved. Then they will drive down the profit margin, and force out the little guys (gang members)...business as usual.

I wonder if fixing some of our mental health problem would help to fix the number of suicides committed each year? It is amazing how many people take their own life each year, yet we do not have any mental health problems, and "guns" are the reason people commit suicide in the first place...

I wonder if economic inequality does not play a part either. There used to be a time when we did not allow people to make 1000+ times more then others (no mental health problems there either huh?). There used to be a time when this country had a 90% top tax rate and more tax brackets to limit the wage gap between rich to poor. I wonder why there are so many gangs in America today? I wonder why so many young people commit gun violence? If I remember right 50% or more of gun violence comes from people under the age of 25.

Talk about barking up the wrong tree...

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

I keep forgetting to mention the other reason I own a semi-automatic rifle, and that is looters. There are times due to hurricanes for example that we lose power for days and weeks at a time. The phone lines are so jammed that you would be lucky to get a call through sometimes even if you had a working land line. Not to mention traffic is backed up everywhere due to there not being any traffic lights. So good luck on waiting for the police to come and save your a$$ then. Guess what time or is the perfect opportunity for gang members or looters to come out and play?

Packs of wild/feral hogs and dogs are another reason I want more then 10 rounds in a mag. Not to mention I never fully load my mags either since the closed bolt forces the top round down further down in the mag then normal while loaded into a gun, causing the spring to wear out faster in many cases.

I can see a reason to own at least two shotguns since there are smoothbore ones for shooting "shot" and rifled ones for shooting "slugs", not to mention the different calibers. 12 gauge on a squirrel might be a little overkill and not leave much meat left. I only intended on buying one gun at first, but realized much like tools there are different guns for different situations. My first gun was my AR/AK American made hybrid. I then bought an American made bolt action .22LR for small game and target practice (since the ammo is about 10x cheaper versus a .223, which is one of the cheapest rifle rounds btw. It is easy to shot 100-200 rounds in a single range trip, at $0.35 to $1 a round they add up quick. Serious shooters reload their own ammo many times to save money.) My next gun was a compact 9mm American made handgun (based on a standard full size gun) since the rifle is so big and bulky. The handgun is to get to the rifle.

If something goes bump in the night I normally grab the handgun. The one time I was really happy I had the semi-automatic rifle was when a party turned into a fight. It was 3 in the morning one night and I was up playing some games when I heard the sounds of a fight and tons of other people. I ran downstairs and tried to look out the windows, but it was dark and could not really tell what was going on even though the fight was just down the street. Part due to the number of people around, and the other due to my eyes still being adjusted to light. I went back, grabbed the phone, and my rifle. I went back to the window and opened it up making myself visible, but kept the rifle hidden. I did not hear anyone calling for help and was still tying to figure out WTF was going on when one of the 20+ people noticed me in the window. They must have figured I was calling the cops since the next thing I know the fight breaks up and everyone leaves.

However if they did not leave or someone did start to cry out for help I was happy to have the semi-automatic rifle "just in case". I would have called the cops first, but I would not have sat there and watch/listen to one of my neighboors get beaten up or killed if things escalated to that point, and they were screaming/crying for help. I would have had to go outside and would have tried to break up the fight even though they may have had guns themselves. Like I said before I was happy to have that rifle right then and there since even the sight of it would have had an effect on people, and I did not want to shot a bunch of kids or get an a$$ beating myself. I was a kid myself and sometimes you write a check your a$$ cannot cash. You need to know when, where, and who you can talk chit to :P, all part of the learning process. (Most were white as far as I could tell, just in case you were wondering btw.)

mozzie, I hunt because I like the taste of meats that are not sold in grocery stores. I also know that the meat that is hunted is not filled with homones or whatever. It is not about "entertainment" or "taking the life of an innocent animal." Oh, and I am a woman.

News or propaganda

You are correct Not one Sane person did any of these shootings.

As Backwards Tulare county in Calif has started a Mental health facility in their prison. As they have found out that 30% are mentally ill

As I said to these Wall Street Supported & Corrupted Political Minions and Gun Control Freaks before....Repeal the Second Amendment LEGALLY or face the Natural Law of "Unintended Consequences"!

"The ruling class doesn't care about public safety. Having made it very
difficult for States and localities to police themselves, having left
ordinary citizens with no choice but to protect themselves as best they
can, they now try to take our guns away. In fact they blame us and our
guns for crime. This is so wrong that it cannot be an honest mistake."
Malcolm Wallop former U.S. Sen. (R-WY)

News or propaganda
She should of started a lobby to improve mental health care instead.

That would work, since it targets the same demographic.

Too much rhetoric about curbing guns, not enough rhetoric about curbing violence.

#1.130 misscreant: I hunt because I like the taste of meats that are not sold in grocery stores. I also know that the meat that is hunted is not filled with homones or whatever. It is not about "entertainment" or "taking the life of an innocent animal." Oh, and I am a woman.

Sadly, you missed my point. You refer to animals as "meat", which says that you have no respect for another living being's life or spirit, as the Native Americans did. Animals have the right to live out their lives naturally, and not to satisfy your cravings.

I don't believe you are female. If so, you should be doubly ashamed of yourself. You are the grave of the animals you kill.

Native Americans greatly respected animals and their spirits, yet they still hunted. I probably have far greater respect for animals and life in general than you do because I hunt because I understand them. To be a good hunter, you must think like the animal you are hunting. It is also a duty as a hunter to not let the animal you are hunting suffer. After the animal has been killed, as quickly and cleanly as possible to minimize suffering, and butchered, it then is meat.

Yes, I am a woman and a mother. I'm sure you will say my children should be taken from my care because I hunt and own firearms.

Animals have a spirit, but they are also not Disney characters, as you seem to think.

Misscreant: We will never have a meeting of the minds on this issue because you don't want to listen to what I have to say, but just want to defend your point. You don't know me, and yet you make assumptions which are inaccurate.

This conversation is ended.

What point of yours did I not listen to? The one where you called hunters "shallow, selfish, unethical people," or the one where you said I had no respect for another living being's life or spirit," or the part where you said I should be "doubly ashamed of myself" because I am a female hunter?

You don't know me, yet you made some pretty big inaccurate assumptions of your own.

I'm glad this conversation is ended because you have been nothing but rude and condescending.

Hey, all of you gunnut fvckwads. Name one instance of a bystander, not a policeman, stepping in and stopping a massacre, just one in the last 236 years. Just give one example. Really, all you have to do is give one fvcking example. Ok, shvt up.

Oh, you don't like the name calling? Then here. Name one instance of a bystander, not a policeman, stepping in and stopping a massacre, just one in the last 236 years. Just give one example. Really, all you have to do is give one example. Exactly.

Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two.

Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.

Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the man’s head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.

Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/it-true-armed-civilians-have-never-stopped-mass-shooting_690808.html

The point is is that these didn't turn into massacres because someone was armed. Outside of local news, they weren't reported on.

Misscreant - To be a good hunter, you must think like the animal you are hunting.

I can tell you what the animal is thinking; no mystery there. The animal is terrified--terrified of losing its life. What happens is that all the fear and trauma you caused is held in the cells; and when you eat this once-living, magnificent being, all of that is transferred into your body. Never thought of that, did you.

BTW, there's no such thing as a good hunter.

Mozzie, so I take it you are a vegetarian. I mean, those cows and chickens that end up in a grocery store deserve to live out their lives in peace, right? Those animals in a slaughterhouse are far more terrified than an animal in the wild that is being hunted. Ever seen the inside of a slaughterhouse?

I thought the conversation was "ended."

Miss - Mozzie, so I take it you are a vegetarian.

Correct.

Ever seen the inside of a slaughterhouse?

I have. I cried for days.

those cows and chickens that end up in a grocery store deserve to live out their lives in peace, right?

Again, correct. (sarcasm noted.) We're working on that.

I thought the conversation was "ended."

Apparently you didn't think so. Since you want the last word, you may have it. Be my guest.

Since you offered me the last word Mozzie, I'll take it. You can go right on ahead being an angry, self-righteous vegetarian, and I'll go right on being a peaceful omnivore. In this country, we have, at least for the moment, the freedom to be whatever we want.

Misscreant - In this country, we have, at least for the moment, the freedom to be whatever we want.

That's what I mean by 'selfish'. Freedom doesn't mean you can take it away from others because you feel entitled.

May all the animals who are waiting to die at your hands forgive you for brutally extinguishing their lives.

@Jerry - I couldn't agree more about why thousands of men women and children in other countries are getting killed. And indeed gun ownership prevents tyranny.

But gun owners need not think gun control = no guns. I think gun control should mean controlling access to guns.

If you think about it - a state is by definition - has monopoly over violence. When that monopoly breaks down you have things like whats going on in Syria etc. So at some level we already have accepted that right to own firearms is NOT equal to right to own unlimited firearms.

On slightly different topic - i always wonder why India China had peaceful coexisting societies for thousands of years without guns. Those societies were not perfect. But they learned how to live together and share. I wonder whether a society that values caring and sharing and coexistence will be one that doesn't as much have to lean on guns for safety and prosperity. I really don't know the answer. Just thinking loud.

OLI: The delusion that you can shoot people you hate, and politicians you disagree with, and the army under the Commander in Chief, clearly shows your contempt for American law. The Constitution doesn't guarantee you the right to shoot anyone. You are what gun laws are about - not the millions of law-abiding gun owners in this nation.

PJ are you serious. China is a terrible example. Communism, Socialism does not work except for the elite few on top. The rest are slaves to the government.

If you want to live in a Socialist state there are many out there to chose from but you have no right to take away my constitutional rights.

Yep - guns were invented to kill people and animals. No amount of legislation is going to prevent someone hell bent on using these weapons illegally. Laws are only effective to those willing to abide by them.

Its not the problem of the object, its the problem of the mind and heart of the person in control of it. They make cars that go faster than is legally allowed to drive, too. Doesn't stop drunks from using them illegally when out of control. It doesn't make any difference what the object was originally intended to do - if you use it and control it in a way other than it was intended, guess what you get.

How about someone beating the drum for legislation that identifies those disorders, helps them if possible, or punish and rid our society of those who don't follow the rules. Until then, I'll keep my gun thank you very much.

I am tired of gun advocates trying to hijack the meaning behind the second amendment. In 1776, the colonies fought for and won independence. But there wasn't enough money to fund an army or a navy. In 1791, it made sense to have a well armed militia (second amendment), because some European king could send his wooden ship Navy to reclaim lands from former colonies. Problems with the British soon ended up leading to the second war of independence -- the War of 1812. So at that time, it made sense to have a second amendment for a well armed militia.

Now fast forward 200 years. Our nations security is assured with technologies like missiles, satellites, and drone aircraft. Our so called militia has become little more than an embarrassing source of domestic violence. The gun industry plays on fears of those who would believe they need to defend themselves from something -- just like Hollywood scares people with images of zombies wandering in streets and trying to come into homes through the windows. Their interest is to sell guns. Today's real patriots serve in our well funded armed forces -- not in some fantasy militia. They enable all of us to ensure our freedoms when we vote to elect our representatives. We get to vote because we are citizens, and not because people own guns.

Guns don't kill people. People who make guns freely accessible kill people.

Jerry what a stupid statement. So if the people that Little Bush killed could have defended themselves if they had guns. Well here is a surprise, they had guns, Bombs, RPG's , Stinger missiles. My son was over there.

John, you gave some good points that I can agree with in your second paragraph. However, the right to self-defense is "unalienable", which means god-given, or given by simple virtue of your existence for the anti-God bigots. NO ONE, not you, Gabby, the president, Congress, NO ONE has the right to take away my right to self-defense. So until YOU PEOPLE, the people who are trying to disarm the country, can positively assure me that no one else has a gun that can be used against me, then I reserve my right to be prepared in a reasonable manner to defend myself, my family, and my property.

If the founding fathers had only wanted to establish a "well-regulated militia" they could have done so without declaring "the right of the people to bear arms" as a specific RIGHT within the supreme documentation of law for our land. There was a reason why the amendment was written the way it was, and recognized by the modern supreme court as affording the right of individuals to own and bear arms for legal purposes, INDEPENDENT OF MEMBERSHIP IN A MILITIA (District of Columbia vs Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and none of your "enlightened" spin will change that fact. The founding fathers chose to make this a FUNDAMENTAL legal doctrine by defining it specifically as a RIGHT.

Please notice that above I said I reserve the right to "reasonable" self-defense. No, I don't think I need a fully automatic machine gun, a grenade launcher, a tank, or nuclear weapons to defend myself. I think a handgun is most sufficient. I have a couple of handguns (ex-police officer) and a rifle. This sounds reasonable to me, though many of your people may argue that.

Now, please, PLEASE, present some REASONABLE "gun control" laws for discussion. And if the current 20,000 or so laws aren't effective, then get rid of them. The reason why you "gun control" advocates catch so much flack is because of the unreasonableness of some of your demands. Some of you don't even try to hide the fact that your ultimate goal is total disarmament of civilians.

John,

Yes, our country is secure in theory from Foreign Nations because we have a National Military, but can you tell me why Japan didn't go past bombing Pearl Harbor? We the People are the Militia that is granted the right to defend our Nation from Tyranical Govt, or Foreign Invasion.

"Going after guns is plain stupid" No it's common sense and you just don't have it.

Our country has been hijacked by drooling pro-gun lobbyists that threaten us with violence and lies about what kills. Guns kill. Period. They are designed for one purpose. Killing. If you haven't figured that out than you're just plain ignorant.

We as civilization are trying to move forward and mentally ill gun nuts are tainting the gene pool with their paranoid delusions about "something" coming for them.

This country has a military that is heavily armed and needs no assistance from wannabe soldiers. Grow up and get a life.

A little dramatic today aren't we Anon?

Oh and look up the Posse Comitatus act and get back to us.

CC GWRider

I am aware of the Supreme Courts fairly recent Heller decision, and I have to say I disagree with it. I think they got it wrong. This is the problem with court created 'case law' decisions. I think we get better law when our representatives do their job and pass legislative laws. Unfortunately, with our gridlocked congress, the Supreme Court is left to make more decisions than it should.

As for self defense, we have different approaches. We can better defend our families by the strict regulation of guns. You don't have to personally own a gun to defend yourself. If you own a gun, you should keep it in an armory or at a range, and only take it out for practice or hunting. Guns should not be kept in homes. Guns kept in homes are the ones that end up being used in places like the elementary school in Newton. If people want to defend their families and children in elementary schools, then they will work towards solutions that let you keep all the guns anyone owns in secured armories.

The formula is clear. Guns unsecured in homes + people in homes having a very bad day = gun tragedies. With proper legislation, we can do better.

@pj

you need to brush up on your history. china and India peaceful coexisting cultures? hell no, look at the Muslim and Hindu killings and riots through out India's history. look at the child prostitution and rapes going on in India. look at the peaceful demonstrations that have been fired on by the Chinese military. the human rights violations that go on all the time in china. china and India are the two worse countries you could try to use about having peaceful coexistence.

Laws must be passed to ban spoons due to the obesity problem in the US. Because all these spoons are making people fat.

UN to Uncle Sam on the subject of theory, how is the Tesla mind control beam working out, is it ready for deployment yet, can you make people do as you want them to do? if so we would very much like to borrow it. we don't care if it leaves people confused and detached, we just want to do a little thinning, this mind control stuff is really fascinating, who would have thought you can program and or de program the human mind so easily and be 100% undetectable, this is way to cool. its amazing you can make some guy think he is a comic book character, but wasn't he supposed to self destruct? please keep us informed on your success with disarmament of your populations as we are ready to execute plan B as soon as its safe to do so. but remember we can not risk our forces till most of your population is disarmed. we are having a little difficultie with the one world currency thing it seams that China does not want to participate unless we use their currency would you mind? now on the issue about national sovereignty, the existence of a sovereign nation can not be tolerated it would inconvenience the new order and threaten the ruling class. and finally I would like to commend you on your progress in getting your people to think collectively the new order will not be tolerant of any free and independent thought, I trust you have the facilities to handle the ones that can't be absorbed into the collective. and last but not least sell the people on sex get them to think of nothing but sex it makes them easier to control sex in any form, after all in the end that is the only thing they will have so make them want it.

Anonamoose1

Our country has been hijacked by drooling pro-gun lobbyists that threaten us with violence and lies about what kills. Guns kill. Period.They are designed for one purpose. Killing. If you haven't figured that out than you're just plain ignorant.

Knives were designed for one purpose. To kill and cut flesh.

However, guns only kill when someone pulls the trigger. I'm willing to bet that, each day, more guns are used as a deterrent without a shot ever being fired than there are gun deaths. You just never hear about it because nobody reports it.

John-1639742

As for self defense, we have different approaches. We can better defend our families by the strict regulation of guns. You don't have to personally own a gun to defend yourself. If you own a gun, you should keep it in an armory or at a range, and only take it out for practice or hunting. Guns should not be kept in homes.

Keeping a gun at the range and only using it for practice is useless if you don't have it handy for defense. Why train with it if you never have it with you?

When someone with a gun breaks into your home in the middle of the night, to steal your property, rape your daughters, and kill your dog (not necessarily in that order) you are going to defend yourself and family how? Your gun is locked up at an armory somewhere. Doesn't do much good, does it?

@john

so what of us that live in rural areas john and have a problem with predators? a young boy was recently killed in canada by a cougar in his front yard. his father who had his guns locked up at the shooting range according to canadian law could do nothing to stop it. i cannot imagine the feeling he had while watching this animal kill his son, knowing that if he had his gun at home he could have stopped it. what you people dont realize is that many ranchers and farmers use a gun as a tool to protect their property and their families from predators, to them a gun is just like a shovel, a tool to help them with their farm, or ranch. i have literaly seen a coyote pull a calf out of a birthing mother, then turn around and kill the cow as well. let me ask what would have happened with the recent bobcat attack if the wife had not been able to shoot it? i bet you would have seen her nephew dead instead of just bitten and scratched up like he was. i am sorry to burst your bubble, but in rural areas a gun is a must have. you never know when you might need it, so keeping it in an armory locked up is just no good. for example my neighbor recently had to shoot a bear. the bear came into his yard, went after his 5 yr old kid. their dog got between the bear and the child, giving him time to get his gun and shoot the bear. the dog unfortunantly was killed by the bear. now tell me how it would have ended if the guy didnt have a gun in his house?

I'm fully in support of testing for mental illness of all gun buyers before they get a gun in their hands. I'd bet anything that more than half of the gun buyers would end up in professional mental health clinics.

Look at how they posture themselves...they puff out their chests, pump their fists, brag about their arsenals and ownership of thousands of rounds of ammo and then, the minute they are exposed by a newpaper as gun buyers and owners, they go all gross insecurity looking for any excuse to avoid admitting they have an addiction to inherently borne violence in their nature. You want to get rid of the gun massacres? Yep...go right ahead and test the mental stabililty of any gun buyer or owner.

They only use the word "WE" to intimidate and they know it. That macho BS of their posturing is just that.

This past Monday on a local tri-state area TV station, a 14 year old kid was shot by a 12 year old. When, one of the neighborhood older teens was interviewed he stated and I quote, "a 7 year old can buy a gun on these streets." But the NRA thinks that a 7 year old should be able to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights whether or not these children are sufficiently mature enough to use good judgement.

Puff out those chest Bully Bois....you are losing the battle of proving your mental stability. All we'd have to do to prove your insanity is take away your guns for a week....roflmao.

the state i live in we have more death from predators then we have from gun violence!

so maybe we should outlaw coyotes, wolves, bears and cougars as well.

@ ewent

i am sorry ewent but a 7 year old cannot legally buy a hand gun. you have to be twenty one years of age to buy a handgun from a dealer. the guns those kids where talking about where illegal black market purchases. i think if we enforced the laws, or made stricter laws with harsher sentencing for illegally purchased weapons that would be more of a deterrent then locking our guns up elsewhere or banning them from law abiding people.

eric...I never said the 7 year old could buy it legally. I posted that the older teen living in NY City said that in his neighborhood, "a 7 year old can buy a gun." What does that tell you? That it was bought legally? Of course it isn't. But legally or not, 20 little kids are dead. Sometimes in this life, you can have your way 100% of the time. In order to function in a civilized, accent on that word "civilized", society, some have to make sacrifices. Why should those of us who do not want to live in a world where guns are flowing legally or illegally become a major inhibition to our freedom to shop, go to a theater or send our kids to school. We are NOT going to allow 1 million gun owners to take away OUR rights to freedom to move about in a civilized society.

You've all had your fun and games playing Wild West. Now, it's time for the little cowboys to grow up. I understand fully that in certain areas of the country guns are a necessity. But, guns are not necessary in the hands of young teens. What about that don't you get? If you can't remember your own raging hormones of your teen yours, take a good look at the teens around you if you need a refresher course in how teens today act. Feeding them more violence than video game, movies and TV already does and then expecting them to have adult judgemental skills is nothing short of stupid.

.

@ CC GW Rider; what the hell good is a fire arm that is locked up in a Armory miles away when the criminal is in your house, and about to tie up your family and cave in their heads with a hammer, before he abducts the two youngest children, (Reference Duncan) now ask the woman yesterday that shot a intruder in her house if she would consider locking up her Weapon in a Armory, I don't mean to be disrespectful but you make it difficult to avoid doing, I am sorry but your post was stupid. if you are going to do that then why bother having a fire arm for self defense, and what good is having a weapon if you don't have equal ammunition as the perpetrator? for instance if a thug has a 9mm with 11 rounds would you feel safe standing your ground with a single shot .22 of course allot of you out their can't reason that because you don't think you will ever be in a situation where you might have to defend yourself, (how many people die every day by crimes not involving guns?) you are also not aware of how many crimes are stopped by people who carry weapons for defence, its not the kind of news the media wants to cover. the Agenda is to take guns away, the media feeds these sick people and the bleeding hearts enable them, they blame the NRA or a manufacturer or a fire arms enthusiast when its them and their defending these sick people that is the problem, we have a sick society and that is the problem. these mass shootings are the most horrible crimes and they sicken us all when they happen. what if it was a buss driver that was transporting a class of children and drove in front of a train deliberately would you blame the buss? or would you blame the train? in California lately people have been setting people on fire, will gun control stop that from happening? its not guns its people and they will find a way like the kid caught yesterday planing to blow up his school had the IED almost done, you waste your time fighting a object like a gun and let the wacko's run loose, we need to identify with the real problem and stop the insanity of blaming a chunk of steel that can do nothing its self, makes more sense to me to blame the media at least the media knows what they contribute to this mess they create the publicity that some of these wackos thrive on and continue to do so for money and to push their agenda shame on them, shame on enablers and all the poorly qualified mental health counselors that convince people that nothing is their fault someone else is to blame, shame on this sick society for enabling the sickness to spread. shame on this society for defending the morally deficient and those that degradate our society, we have a sick society and choose to look the other way, people have become worse then sheep, sheep have a excuse for being a stupid animal, people don'tthey just are. some people say we need to address the mental health and I agree we have serious problems with the form of mental health we adopted its not working instead of artificially boosting self esteem and giving moral support to the misguided we should take a harsh approach and start holding people accountable themselves instead of sympathizing and passing the blame to others in other words grow up and stop your whining there are to many spoiled brats running around crying if they don't get their way and absorbing all the sympathy they can get till they cant get enough then they snap. cars kill people why don't we control them more, cars pollute why do we allow children to use them as a social tool, something to amuse themselves with? so cars kill , boats kill, Planes kill, cops kill, water kills, sometimes peanut butter kills, Doctors kill, and we can stop it all by establishing more controls, I doubt it. one argument that the liberals use is in reference to abortion and what they say is if we outlaw abortion we will force the practice underground and it will get out of control and be less safe, so why would you want to do that with guns? that is what will happen, just like the whisky trade, took it away from the few then all of a sudden everyone wanted it, prohibition was a major backfire but it made lots of money. and now the government enjoys the revenue and some people still want to control what others do. what did people in the past do without all these damn controls.

@Tether, learn to read. I talked about history if you can comprehend that word.

@eric - same with you - no point in any discussion unless you actually read and compare Indian and chinese history and then compare to American history.

@ewent

We are NOT going to allow 1 million gun owners to take away OUR rights to freedom to move about in a civilized society.

Not sure where you get the idea that there are only 1 million gun owners. The NRA has between 4 - 5 million members. There is an estimated total of 85+ million gun owners in the U.S. who own an estimated total 270 - 300 million firearms.

Going after law abiding gun owners for the acts of a few criminals/mentally deranged is ridiculous. Your odds of getting killed by a firearm in this country is a small fraction of 1%. You have a greater chance of being struck by lightening.

@Sally - I think you need to reread Jerry's comment. It is not off the topic. Jerry is posting pro gun. It is another matter that he uses external wars to illustrate his point.

ewent: Last Saturday, 7:30 AM, went shopping at WalMart. My first mistake, I realize. Very few people in the store, even very few employees and stockers.

Young white male (I'm not young) walks by - in the company of 3 women of various ages, looking extremely self-conscious. On his hip is a S&W .40cal semi-auto. It's Arizona, you understand. As my wife and I continue shopping and keeping our distance, it occurs to me how easy it would be for a 'mentally disturbed' person armed with a 1.5 litre bottle of Merlot to walk up behind this guy, put his lights out, take his gun, and proceed to do whatever it is that 'mentally disturbed' people do.

True, if you confronted this person face to face, and announced your bad intentions, he might have been of some use. Is that a likely scenario? Last Saturday, I came to realize this "save the day" mentality is no more than a pipe dream, especially if one is 'open carrying'. This guy would have never known what hit him.

Alan, Were you just fine with happened in Newtown? and all the other mass murders of late? You don't want abortion, yet you wont let schools teach you girls how not to get pregnant. You would't make young men take responsibly. I have always lived in small town. 3 years ago I have to move my family to a city. This is a Republican strong hold. I have a 15 Year old daughter. Every sense we moved here, it has been know that the boys here can do what ever they want to these girls. Seniors having sex with 12 year old girls and nothing is done about it. There protected. That is rape no matter how you see it. And when that 12 year old comes up Pregnant, it somehow is her fault. The guy that did this to her, well his parents have money and get him off scoot free. Free until the girls dad uses his second amendment rights and take a Gun and shoots the little bastard for raping his daughter. And Yes the little girl had an abortion, The boy is dead, and the dad is in jail.

This article is not about abortion!!!

Do you have sisters, a daughter, wife, girlfriend, or any female friends? What would you say if one of them became pregnant and feared for their life (because a parent would loose their mind), the female was raped, or her life was in danger for health reasons.

Do you want to "FORCE" a female to carry a child to term so the child can be abused or abandoned? By forcing this woman to carry this child, some would consider that as a form of abuse.

The woman that is pregnant is the one that has to live with this decision not you!

Since you want to "END abortion", answer these questions, How many adoption list are you on? How many children would you be willing to take into your home and raise?

Walk a mile in a woman's shoes before you pass judgement!

How convenient! Anti-abortion but pro-gun killing! Which is it? Killing or not?

No male has the right to fight against abortions. Unless you can become pregnant, shut up!

No killing kids isn't on any approved activities list of any pro 2nd amendment advocate. You just make it that way by straw man argument anonamoose.

Killing kids in any fashion is a grave mistake, yes, even by those selfish, arrogant people who view unborn children as just another infection of clump of flesh.

Alan ...Nice dodge in your post. The anti-government, anti-women, anti-anti-antis are getting out of control. A mental stability test is in order for loonies who equate 20 6 year old kids being turned into chopped meat because some Annie Oakley McMommie taught her mentally ill child to shoot her assault weapon is fine by you?

I'm fed up hearing about how these gun owners must have guns to protect their homes and their families. Where the hell do these people live that their lives are under such constant break-ins and theft? Looks like some of the hoochie coochies out there show off their excesses too much and make themselves ripe for the thieves pickings.

@2q3

i know i get a kick out these people screaming ban gun. yet when it comes to abortion they are not up to supporting a ban on that as well. i think it is very hypocritical. there should be no reason for an abortion now adays with the availability of all the birth control. the only abortion i could see necessary is for rape and danger to the mother for carrying to term. oh yes i am all for teaching safe sex in school. the school in my town currently does it. i do think its silly that the schools have to teach something that is the parents responsibility. my mother and father had the talk with me about safe sex. what is going on with our generation of parents that don't take the time to speak with their kids.

@ ewent

i am not worried about break in and thefts. i am worried about predators attacking my animals and kids or myself. i live in a rural area that has large problems with predators, a gun is a must. now if you want me to start selling my steaks at one hundred dollars a pound because of herd loss, sure go ahead and ban guns.

It's always the socialists that want to ban guns, isn't it?. They have any number of so-called gun control measures at the ready at any given time. All they need do, they reason, is to wait for some shooting or other tragedy for them to exploit.

The fact that whatever measures there are in their legislation would have absolutely no effect on any aforementioned tragedy is irrelevant since their agenda is to ride a wave of irrational emotionalism towards enacting any bans.

The only certainty is that whatever new restrictions they might be able to get passed will soon be followed with new and even more onerous restrictions, and this will continue until gun ownership is virtually non-existent. This is the goal of socialism the world over since they consider a disarmed people to be the most easily controlled.

The socialists also accept the fact that many criminals will always be armed because that's the nature of criminals and they don't think too much about that. It is the general population that needs to be disarmed.

If they can't get the 2nd amendment removed from the constitution, the next best thing is to ignore it.

Eric, Well said. I also live in a rural area. Here in the great state of Wisconsin, we have to deal with coyotes, timber wolves, black bear & now there have been plenty of sightings of cougars coming out of the Dakotas. I once was sitting in my deer stand bowhunting, when I heard a big cat. I thought to myself & said all I have was my bow & a hunting knife, no match for this predator. I now always carry a sidearm while bowhunting. Hope that answers your question, ewent. Firearms are a neccesity in certain areas. Oh, BTW, look @ all the predators in Chicago. Enough said. Thanks, & have a nice day!

ewent

Alan ...Nice dodge in your post. The anti-government, anti-women, anti-anti-antis are getting out of control. A mental stability test is in order for loonies who equate 20 6 year old kids being turned into chopped meat because some Annie Oakley McMommie taught her mentally ill child to shoot her assault weapon is fine by you?

I'm fed up hearing about how these gun owners must have guns to protect their homes and their families. Where the hell do these people live that their lives are under such constant break-ins and theft? Looks like some of the hoochie coochies out there show off their excesses too much and make themselves ripe for the thieves pickings.

In America...where in Los Angeles alone the crime rate and break in rate is what????

http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ca/los-angeles/crime/

Take a good look at the PER-CAPITA CRIMES.... whats that? for every 1000 people 29 violent crimes were commited???

Oh and right on the front page of the SOURCE I feel you need, to come back to planet earth. ....

CHANCES TO BE A VICTIM OF A CRIME IN L.A. - 1 in 188

CHANCES TO BE A VICTIM OF A CRIME IN CALIFORNIA - 1 in 243

Ewent, please look at these facts....yes facts.... and tell me again where you live????

I await to hear where you are from in AMERICA?

ERic...Rational Americans know that some ranchers need their guns. I saw that when I was in Montana and Idaho. The problem in the US today is that most of us are not ranchers who need to protect our livestock. There will always be exceptions to the need for arms...the military, the police and people like yourself.

What I see in my overcrowded, overpopulated state and neighboring NY, PA and CT is an abundance of guns everywhere and murders of human beings in such volume that are kids are becoming totally desensitized to it. Right now, the movie that is the top box office hit is also the bloodiest, goriest and in 3-D...Chainsaw 3. Idiot parents take their kids as young as 5 years old to see these horrific movies. Is there an educational value to that? You bet not. Your kids are learning how to protect your livestock by your example. Our kids are learning that killing humans is akin to killing cockroaches. See the difference yet?

eric,

Two different topics. One has to do with the Constitution and the other has to do with religious dogma. They are not one in the same. An unborn fetus has no Human rights, it is not considered, by law, to be a living Human. A fetus only becomes a baby, by law, when it is successfully born. This is why abortions are banned after 22 weeks when the chances of successful birth are 50%.

Banning abortions has nothing to do with the law and everything to do with religion trying to obtain powers it does not have a rightful claim to. If you want to live by laws under the decree of a religion move to a theocracy. It will never happen in the USA and every attempt to turn the USA into a theocracy from abortion bans, Gay marriage bans, to Interracial marriage bans have all eventually been not only defeated by rendered completely innocuous.

Religion does not set nor have a hand in creating any of the laws in our country; judicially we are a secular nation with no national religion and no Government recognized primary religion. As such no one religion has more power than another, for example Christians cannot deny Muslims the right to practice their religion; any actions to do so are not only unconstitutional they are also illegal.

We are a country of many religions, nationalities, and traditions and thus no one set of values can apply to us as a whole. This is what makes America one of the greatest nations on this rock, we accept everyone equally and incorporate them into our society and gain from them their cultural differences which, for most, fosters understanding of the culture they come from.

Isolationism is how countries die; look to China, Nazi Germany, and many other failed Isolationist states that tried to enforce a singular outlook on life onto their people and castigate any that opposed that outlook.

@Allen

Read what I posted in response to Eric. Your personal opinion has nothing to do with legal facts. Legally fetuses are not people and they have no rights. Therefore abortion is not murder. Forced abortion, against a Mother's will, would be murder because it was without consent but that is a separate topic. If the Mother consents to getting an abortion and is not at 22 weeks or beyond then there should be no restrictions. If you do not like the idea of an abortion then do not allow anyone in your family that you have power over to get one. That does not mean that you can keep your next door neighbor from getting one because that infringes on their rights.

I love people like you that talk of banning Abortion without realizing that you are advocating for Government intrusion into your personal life. You probably are against the Government intruding into your life for other reasons but see not problem with this one. It is that paradox that I enjoy because it shows how out of touch with the reality of your positions your side really is.

If anti-abortionists were really for the traditional small Government that is parroted almost hourly by Republicans then any type of Government intrusion on any matter would be something you were against. Be it gun control, controlling marriage, or banning abortions. All of these topics, if your ideology was applied evenly, would be out of bounds because they extend to the Government power that they are not granted by the Constitution.

However that is not how it goes and everyone does know it. Those that are usually pro-gun and anti-Abortion are usually also in favor of increasing the size of the Government in areas that it was never meant o be expanded in by the founding Fathers. America was never meant to follow any one religion to the point of nationalization and control over the Government; the founders vision was of a secular America that was colorblind to religion.

Creating laws that follow religions doctrine is nothing more than advocating for a pseudo-Theocracy. From there it only gets worse as religion clamors for more power until we become another Iran, another Gaza, another pre-2003 Afghanistan; in short another theocratic dictatorship. Many would agree that America should die and be buried before any religion takes control of the Government.

Abortion and gun murder are very different. A woman makes her decision to have an abortion. It is a decision that belongs directly to her. A right she has that has been deemed legal by the Supreme Court.

A woman or a man does not decide to be killed by a gun toting criminal. It is not a legal act to murder someone. No one has the right to harm someone else.

These "Gun Control Freaks" (GCF's) Do Not have the "Right to "Tear Jerk" US out of Our Constitutional Rights by Executive Order, UN Treaty, SCOTUS Ruling or merely by another Corporate Corrupted Law!

Nothing but their Silly Nonsense....So GCF's what part of "shall not be infringed" aren't you unwilling to "Understand" this time?

Remember folks it was only AFTER these Robber Baron Corporations took over and corrupted Our Politicians Courts & Government that they suddenly "Granted" themselves the "Right" to Infringe upon the Bill Of Rights and the Constitution of the United States!

Enough is Enough and refuse to allow the Disarmament of America by the Corrupt Wall Street Corporations and Banksters or their Political Minions!

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."~
Thomas Jefferson Third President of the United States

Shosyn...You just proved why the proliferation of guns is unacceptable in a civilized society. If there are that many crimes in your area, it must be like a rerun of a Wild West shoot 'em up scene where everyone is shooting in all directions at anything that moves.

Now, you won't like this. I've lived 66 years in NJ. Not once in those 66 years did my farmer father have to shoot a predator animal on the farm. He used traps which were successful every time. I lived in one of NJ's biggest cities back in the 1960's. Never once was accosted by a criminal, had a break-in or was mugged.

Now? I live in a town where a disgruntled employee of the Pathmark Supermarket shot to death 2 innocent employees because he was angry at the loss of his job. So...should those two employees paid to do their jobs have been armed and shot back? Putting other employees in danger?

Sorry but the number of lives saved in a shoot out is not what the NRA wants us to believe and of course they are mostly a tad biased in order to get the enth degree of their so-called rights.

Get real. If you thrive on violence, you magnetize violence. My father, an old Italian immigrant, had a saying, "One violent man is always onto the scent of another violent man." I believe that's true. When the cowboys start their swaggering with their chests all puffed out, they intend to posture in an intimidating manner that's a magnet for other violent men who can't resist reacting.

Maybe I'm just lucky not to have ever been in a bad situation. Or maybe it was that I had 5 brothers I knew could insure my safety...they never knew how to shoot a gun; but, they likely could do quite a bit of damage with their fists.

I'm afraid I am not impressed with the "High Noon" Shoot out types. I can just see it 20 years from now...every man, woman and child armed in NJ (my state) and the minute a nut job gets cut off in our massive traffic congestion another shoot out begins. Now there's a civilized society for you.

MUW...Can your kind ever think outside of yourselves? There are approximately 325 million Americans in this country. How would arming all 325 million not result in daily massacres? You can't guarantee the mental stability of any gun owner for a lifetime. As such your premise of YOUR rights superceding OUR rights to live in a civilized society are going to be usurped. React in a violent way to that and you'll be on line for the next session of testing of gun owners mental stability. Next?

eric...I never said the 7 year old could buy it legally. I posted that the older teen living in NY City said that in his neighborhood, "a 7 year old can buy a gun." What does that tell you? That it was bought legally? Of course it isn't. But legally or not, 20 little kids are dead. Sometimes in this life, you can have your way 100% of the time.

It's near impossible for an adult to buy a handgun legally in NYC. They are effectively banned, with the exception of police, rich and famous, and criminals. Ye, somehow, they keep popping up.

In order to function in a civilized, accent on that word "civilized", society, some have to make sacrifices. Why should those of us who do not want to live in a world where guns are flowing legally or illegally become a major inhibition to our freedom to shop, go to a theater or send our kids to school.

So you think, because you are a pacifist, that no one should be allowed guns to defend themselves? Do you think if the government bans guns, that the people who would use them willingly on humans would just simply turn them in? Because people have guns, you have the freedom to shop, go to the theater, and send your kids to school. You don't think that, every day, you are passing by people carrying legal concealed firearms? What world DO you live in?

We are NOT going to allow 1 million gun owners to take away OUR rights to freedom to move about in a civilized society.

1 million gun owners? Try 80 million gun owners and 300 million guns. How do you feel now?

ewent...We have the "Right" to Bears Arms....You merely have an "Opinion" against that "Right"!

Gee but they are such "Little & Reasonable" (to you & for now) Infringements to the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights!

Don't like the Second Amendment....Repeal it LEGALLY!

Until then my "Right" to uphold the Oath I took *and so many others) to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies both foreign or domestic supersedes your "Fear"!

Sorry.....

"The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution."~
Thomas Jefferson Third President of the United States

Yep. Ms Giffords is now going to be exploited by every freak with an axe to grind, and probably lacks the strength or self-confidence to refuse.

Watch for the "Brady Bunch" to make her some kinda poster child.

jerry: Ms Giffords ".. lacks the strength or self-confidence..."? Not from what I heard.

If that was NOT the case then why is she being used now. And why did she NOT refuse to be the head of the horse and pony show.

This woman, unlike you, was shot in the head!

She is the perfect counter argument to the NRA's propaganda!

You don't have the right to question her motives. When you're shot in the head you can speak for her.

I don't think its her. I'm betting its her husband running the show. He wasn't satisfied with 15 mins. of fame.

Oh yeah, no fame in being an astronaut. That was sarcasm.

Ms Giffords is now going to be exploited by every freak with an axe to grind, and probably lacks the strength or self-confidence to refuse.

She has the strength to launch a group. What you're saying doesn't fit with reality. I know people don't read the article, but at least read the headline.

Who the Hell cares what the giffords think? To me they are just Two more Parasites living off the backs off the working man.

Did you know he went into space while she was recovering from a gunshot wound to the head? What a mooch on society! Never worked a day in his life! And her! Doing public service! And getting shot while doing it! Ain't no bigger moochers than them. Never lifted a finger for this country! That was also sarcasm.

Are you folks for real?

Anonamoose1- I am a member of the NRA! A soldier! A teacher! (kindergarten) Funny thing...I have nothing against you because I don't know you. Yet, people like you accuse people like me of supporting a bad thing, violence or distorted ideas. Really? NRA propaganda? What is the US governement feeding you? Honesty? I hope you don't believe that for a second. Check it out...in 1996 Chairman Allen Greenspan stated that a potential problem was developing or getting worse; that problem was economic disparity. America's major future issue will be a self-inflicted class conflict/disparity.

The highly rich folks of this country rule you and me. We live in a Plutocracy, or, actually, moving quickly toward it. Al Gore, for example, earned 500 million (?) Just last week. (stocks? bonds? cash? who cares) What do you think he is going to do with it? Support laws and programs that he sees fit for you and me. Key words here are: "He sees fit". Support Jeffery Sachs? Obama? Giffords? Wow!!! Hollywood...hmm. Who do they support? Do any of these personalities in Hollywood and Government have our best interests at stake? Can and do they really relate to you or me or anyone else on this website? Which of them have been arrested for a misdemeanor? Seen violence in their own homes? Maybe seen their mothers, sisters, or brothers get slapped or punched. Too few of them.

Remember John Lennon's song where he states: Dont believe in Hitler, Dont believe in tarot Dont believe in magic, Dont believe in Buddha, I just believe in me, loco me? Well, that is me. I am a hippy. Peace, love and happiness. A hippy in the NRA! A hippy in the US Army! A hippy teacher! Yet, I believe in the rule of law and own some excellently, designed guns. Why? To defend you, me and others who may need it. Do me a favor. Buy a pistol. Learn how to use it correctly and use it when necessary. Let others know that if they threaten you or your loved ones with lethal force or senseless violence you have an answer for it. Peace, love and happiness is worth defending to the end. The NRA doesn't make me! I make the NRA. I am willing to defend you because you are... YOU; nothing more; nothing less. I am a soldier. Remember that, please.

guns don't kill people, people kill people, you need to fix the real problem, and give the teachers the right to punish the kids for acting up, and put god back in the classroom. you it is bad enough when you have al these goody to shoe people running around saying this is wrong and that is wrong but the real issue is sin. the kids (young adults)today are full of and you know alot of them have never even been given a good old fashioned spanking. you know i got my fare share groing up and I don't have an issue. the other part of the problem is to much violence on tv and in the video games. everything is so realistic they get overwhelmed

If Newtown didn't "Tear Jerk" US into surrendering to the Wall Street Oligarchs our Second Amendment Rights and the ONLY means to defend ourselves from their Corrupt Political Minions...What do they think using an already Corrupted Corporate Politician like Gabby Gifford will do?

As I said "Gabby" has lost all sympathy I might have had for her when she once again joined with her Robber Baron and Oligarch Devils on Wall Street and their endless "Disarm America" Campaign!

America always remember...Corporate Tyranny is just One More Law Away!

The Corporations already have Indefinite Detention Without Trial, Killer Drones, Presidential Kill Lists and Endless Not Wars....All they need now is to "Disarm US" at Home!

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress
to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience;
or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable
citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"~Samuel Adams

The democratic party heads are behind this. If you want to know whats causing these killings watch this video of Adam Lanza's Doctor.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=aaplw&p=Adam+Lanza's+Doctor

Getmadstaymad......What and these Wall Street Corrupted So Called "Republicans" are not?

Wake up and get real.....The Wall Street Oligarchs own both Parties, the Court System, most of the "Brass" of our Military and the all of Wall Street Media Outlets!

They are ALL out to disarm US....Never Forget or Doubt it!

"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton The Federalist Papers at 184-8

radconcept,

Best comment I've heard to date on the subject. Big thumbs up!

This is by far the absolutely best explanation I have read about what is wrong in the US. I wish the people in power all could think this way.

Just like obumbo, blame someone or something but NEVER take the REAL problems on. Liberals..............

The new American way. Blame everything and everyone else, except the person accountable.

I'm pretty sure Jared Laughner got blamed for this. But it is only human nature when there is a painful event that focuses our attention to speculate on what could have been done to prevent it.

I also disagree that it is the "new American way." We've come a long way from lynch mobs hanging black folk without due process. That was scapegoating and vigilantism all in one.

We are now and have been for several years now, a society where the blame falls elsewhere. There is no accountability or respect for our fellow man anymore.

We've always been a society content to scapegoat with no respect for anyone else. Whether it was the Blacks, Irish, the Italians, the Chinese, the Jews, the Mormans, the Somalis, the Mexicans, etc etc etc.

The ferocious individualism being preached in recent years may exacerbate perceptions on the left. And the right has exacerbated perceptions from minorities gaining a tiny amount of representation or civil equality.

It is lack of social standards and accountability that is failing this country. We are spending way too much time patting everyone on the back and not enough time building integrity and respect.

While I can support the cause, it's disingenuous to believe that it used to be that way. It's also a fallacy to scapegoat societal standards for the current failings of our nation, whatever they are at this moment. (There will always be some national failing.)